Bharat Rakshak

sanman wrote: ↑09 Nov 2024 16:55 During Trump 1.0 we were able to remove Art 370 while he looked the other way.

Which comparably big things can we do under Trump 2.0 ?

rajkumar wrote: ↑09 Nov 2024 17:24 So my question is - 'Why does India need US approval for purely internal Indian matter?'

VKumar wrote: ↑09 Nov 2024 23:32 When is the US Ambassador to be replaced.

Mort Walker wrote: ↑10 Nov 2024 00:45

VKumar wrote: ↑09 Nov 2024 23:32 When is the US Ambassador to be replaced.

Typically they leave in December, but don't know if Garcetti is willing to return to the shit-hole of LA. He may hang around before privately being asked to resign by the incoming Trump team.

uddu wrote: ↑11 Nov 2024 16:53 EAM Jaishankar Breaks Down EXACTLY What The Trump 2.0 Presidency Means For India

KL Dubey wrote: ↑12 Nov 2024 23:40 ...
Most of the Indian media - including ironically the so-called right-wing social media outlets - still have the "amriki saheb will help/save us" mentality since Trump has been elected. The only thing that has changed for these fellows is that there are now two types of "sahibs", one good and one bad. Perhaps these folks will next evolve to finding a third type - the "indifferent" one.

sanman wrote: ↑09 Nov 2024 16:55 During Trump 1.0 we were able to remove Art 370 while he looked the other way.

Which comparably big things can we do under Trump 2.0 ?

Treat India as if it were of the same status as U.S. allies such as Japan, Israel, Korea, and NATO allies regarding technology transfers;
Authorize the Secretary of State to enter into a memorandum of understanding with India to increase military cooperation;
Expedite excess defense articles to India for two years and grant India the same status as other allies;
Expand International Military Education and Training Cooperation with New Delhi;
Require a report to Congress on Pakistan’s use of offensive force, including through terrorism and proxy groups, against India; and
Bar Pakistan from receiving security assistance if it is found to have sponsored terrorism against India.

bala wrote: ↑13 Nov 2024 20:01 I am waiting for Tulsi Gabbard's appointment. She worked hard for DJT's victory and should be given something substantial.

KL Dubey wrote: ↑12 Nov 2024 23:40 Most of the Indian media - including ironically the so-called right-wing social media outlets - still have the "amriki saheb will help/save us" mentality since Trump has been elected. The only thing that has changed for these fellows is that there are now two types of "sahibs", one good and one bad. Perhaps these folks will next evolve to finding a third type - the "indifferent" one.

sanman wrote: ↑13 Nov 2024 21:21

bala wrote: ↑13 Nov 2024 20:01 I am waiting for Tulsi Gabbard's appointment. She worked hard for DJT's victory and should be given something substantial.

She could have been a good US SecDef pick, given her military background and clear-eyed views about security.

I think she deserves some posting that makes use of her foreign policy & military experience.

Goodbye, Eric Garcetti, And Please Stay Out Of The Business Of Diplomacy

Eric Garcetti, the United States (US) Ambassador to India, has somehow managed to turn diplomacy into a circus act.

Garcetti's tenure has been a disservice to both the United States and India, one characterised by baffling statements, selective amnesia regarding security, and a blatant disregard for India’s legitimate concerns.

His misguided, if not outright irresponsible, remarks about Khalistani extremists and the US’ complicity in shielding them have done nothing to strengthen US-India relations — if anything, they’ve undermined them. It’s no surprise that Garcetti’s time as Ambassador is coming to an end, and the sooner he’s out of Delhi, the better.

Garcetti's latest defence of the Biden administration’s stance on Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a Khalistani extremist operating openly on American soil, is perhaps the most absurd of his many blunders. In a podcast with journalist Smita Prakash, Garcetti asserted that in the United States, "you can’t be punished for speech, only actions."

This misguided defence of free speech is not only naive but downright dangerous. It’s as though Garcetti believes that words when spoken by individuals with malicious intent, have no consequence — completely ignoring the incitement to violence that those very words can cause.

Pannun’s rhetoric is clear: he has threatened the lives of Indian leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Punjab, and others. Yet, Garcetti suggests that unless Pannun directly acts on those threats, the US is powerless to intervene. This absurd standard completely ignores the fact that Pannun’s incitement has already led to attacks on Indian diplomatic missions, terror threats, and general unrest.

If Garcetti and the Biden administration are so keen on maintaining this narrow interpretation of free speech, then they are complicit in allowing violence to fester under their watch.

What’s more troubling is Garcetti’s pattern of downplaying serious threats posed by Khalistani extremists. In a separate interview, Garcetti suggested that the US only acts on "crimes," not "opinions," downplaying India’s concerns about Khalistani terrorism.

His remarks, which seem to signal a green light to extremist groups, not only display a lack of understanding of the broader geopolitical issues at play but also reveal a disturbing complacency when it comes to safeguarding innocent lives. It almost seems as though Garcetti believes the US should wait for the blood to be spilled before taking any meaningful action.

India has long raised concerns about the safe havens provided to Khalistani extremists in the US, and Garcetti’s statements only seem to confirm suspicions that the US is turning a blind eye to these groups, even as they grow bolder.

Pannun, in particular, has become a symbol of this indifference, using his platform to incite violence against India and its people. Yet, Garcetti continues to downplay the severity of these actions, as though they are inconsequential.

This level of incompetence and irresponsibility would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. The US’ failure to take decisive action against individuals like Pannun suggests a troubling disregard for the safety and security of a close ally.

Garcetti, in his diplomatic naivety, may have thought he could charm his way through these issues, but the reality is that his tenure has only served to alienate India. His comments have deepened the rift between the two nations, making it clear that the US is not serious about countering the Khalistani threat.

Garcetti’s confirmation as Ambassador in 2022 came only after a yearslong battle to save his failing career, tainted by his disgraceful cover-up of sexual harassment by one of his top aides. As US Ambassador to India, he continued to embarrass himself and the US, fumbling diplomacy and proving, every day, that he was unfit for the job.

The most ironic part of Garcetti’s tenure is his own admission that the US-India relationship isn’t strong enough to be taken “for granted.”

If anything, Garcetti’s bungling of sensitive issues like the Khalistani extremism debate and his tone-deaf statements about free speech show just how weak this relationship remains under his watch. His words — carelessly thrown out without understanding the full context — have done more harm than good.

Garcetti’s diplomatic career will likely be remembered for his failures in India, and good riddance when he’s gone. With a Republican administration likely returning to the White House in 2025, the hopes of real diplomatic progress with India are much brighter.

As for Garcetti, he’ll return to his political obscurity, possibly setting his sights on another cushy job when another Democratic administration takes the White House — hopefully, without the power to affect international relations again.

The sooner he is out of the picture, the better for both India and the US.

disha wrote: ↑14 Nov 2024 03:37

KL Dubey wrote: ↑12 Nov 2024 23:40 Most of the Indian media - including ironically the so-called right-wing social media outlets - still have the "amriki saheb will help/save us" mentality since Trump has been elected. The only thing that has changed for these fellows is that there are now two types of "sahibs", one good and one bad. Perhaps these folks will next evolve to finding a third type - the "indifferent" one.

So when Modi is called a boss by Aus PM or when Trump tweets that he is a great friend of Modi and is one of the first leaders he talks to after his win, what kind of shahib is Trump? Good, Bad or Indifferent?

KL Dubey wrote: ↑14 Nov 2024 04:26 Welcome back from the ban. I bolded relevant text above, so you can identify whom to go ask this question.

disha wrote: ↑14 Nov 2024 03:41 Tulsi G is head of DNI, which requires military experience. NSA comes under DNI. All intelligence either comes under DNI or reports its briefings to DNI. That means CIA reports its activities to DNI.

vimal wrote: ↑14 Nov 2024 06:15 Tulsi Gabbard to serve as director of national intelligence

President-elect Trump on Wednesday announced that he is appointing Tulsi Gabbard to serve as director of national intelligence in his new Cabinet.

Irony is that Biden admin put her under domestic terror watchlist. Now the same agencies will serve under her FBI, CIA and all other 3 letter ones.

vimal wrote: ↑14 Nov 2024 06:15 Tulsi Gabbard to serve as director of national intelligence

President-elect Trump on Wednesday announced that he is appointing Tulsi Gabbard to serve as director of national intelligence in his new Cabinet.

Irony is that Biden admin put her under domestic terror watchlist. Now the same agencies will serve under her FBI, CIA and all other 3 letter ones.

Mukesh.Kumar wrote: ↑14 Nov 2024 14:54

vimal wrote: ↑14 Nov 2024 06:15 Tulsi Gabbard to serve as director of national intelligence

President-elect Trump on Wednesday announced that he is appointing Tulsi Gabbard to serve as director of national intelligence in his new Cabinet.

Irony is that Biden admin put her under domestic terror watchlist. Now the same agencies will serve under her FBI, CIA and all other 3 letter ones.

Interesting times. I wonder how the establishment will react having TG as their head honcho, when a year ago,the US TSA had put her on a terror watch list (Lawmakers incensed after former congresswoman placed on terror watch list).

And how CNN will be reporting on her activities after they had aired Hill C's interview insinuating that she was being groomed by the Russians. Seems the video has already been pulled but article still up.

Mukesh.Kumar wrote: ↑14 Nov 2024 15:14

Mukesh.Kumar wrote: ↑14 Nov 2024 14:54

Interesting times. I wonder how the establishment will react having TG as their head honcho, when a year ago,the US TSA had put her on a terror watch list (Lawmakers incensed after former congresswoman placed on terror watch list).

And how CNN will be reporting on her activities after they had aired Hill C's interview insinuating that she was being groomed by the Russians. Seems the video has already been pulled but article still up.

Almost on cue- The Atlantic comes out with this opinion piece- Tulsi Gabbard’s Nomination Is a National-Security Risk

Trump's really ruffling feathers in DeeSee.

vimal wrote: ↑14 Nov 2024 21:35

Mukesh.Kumar wrote: ↑14 Nov 2024 15:14

Almost on cue- The Atlantic comes out with this opinion piece- Tulsi Gabbard’s Nomination Is a National-Security Risk

Trump's really ruffling feathers in DeeSee.

The Author Tom Nicols is still trying to peddle Dems favorite Russia hoax after all these years. All part of the gehra rajya.